CHAPTER 1: DUTCH REFORMED THEOLOGY AND ECCLESIOLOGY DURING THE
2.8 The General Regulation for the Reformed church
143
“Grondwet voor het Koningrijk der Nederlanden (1815),” wikisource, July 14, 2017,
https://nl.wikisource.org/wiki/Grondwet_voor_het_Koningrijk_der_Nederlanden_(1815)#ZESDE_HOOFDSTUK._ Van_den_Godsdienst.
144
Harinck and Winkeler, “De Negentiende Eeuw,” 602; A.J. Bronkhorst, “De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk en het Algemeen Reglement van 1816,” in Inleiding tot de Studie van het Kerkrecht, ed. W Spijker and L.C. Van ’t Drimmelen, 2nd ed. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1992), 121, http://www.kerkrecht.nl/node/5202.
145
Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 32.
146
Reitsma, Geschiedenis van de Hervorming en de Hervormde Kerk der Nederland, 373; Harinck and Winkeler, “De Negentiende Eeuw,” 609; Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 31.
147
Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 39.
148
“godsdienstige gezindheden” and “belijders der onderscheiden godsdiensten.” See Bijleveld, 33; “Grondwet voor het Koningrijk der Nederlanden (1815),” chap. 6.
The Algemeen Reglement voor het bestuur der Hervormde Kerk was intended to define the status and jurisdiction of the church. It thus would stipulate the rules, the governance and the reasonable application of its directions. To this end, and on the initiative of king William I, a commission was appointed to design and submit a general regulation for the Reformed Church in the
Netherlands.149 The Reformed church would not review or formulate a church order by way of a general synod in its own right. The government through an appointed and thus official
commission did this.150
The appointed commission had no official relation with the church or any church
assembly. It did not report to the church assemblies or inform them of any work that was done. It was a cluster comprising religious ministers that were selected by the state Minister and his officials, who devised the Regulation under the strict observance of the government.151 As a matter of fact, Janssen designed a concept and presented it to the commission as a work document. This was subjected to discussion and commentary. After concluding their task, the draft Regulation was again amended, without any inputs from the commission or its members. Jonker pointed out that this extraordinary procedure was aimed at finalising the Regulation without hitches or queries raised by either the State Council or the church, or both.152 Any delay in the process would have been contra-productive.
In his dealings with the church, William I continued the course set by the interim
Batavian and French dispensations. He retained the ministry department and most of its members.
149
Reitsma, Geschiedenis van de Hervorming en de Hervormde Kerk der Nederland, 359; Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 46.
150
For a detailed description of the work of the commission, see Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 71– 153.
151
Van Loon, 209; Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 46.
152
Jonker, Die Regering van Christus in Sy Kerk: Geskiedenis van die Ontwikkeling van die Gereformeerde Kerkreg, 223.
Moreover, the first steps in drafting a new ecclesiastical order were already undertaken during the Batavian Republic (1796-1806), the Kingdom of Holland (1806-1810) and during the
incorporation into the French empire (1810-1813).153 After the king called in additional advisors and made some changes, the Algemeen Reglement voor het bestuur der Hervormde kerk van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden was decreed and sanctioned by him on Sunday 7 January 1816.154 The king now confronted the Reformed church with a fait accompli.155
Van Loon, as a key interpreter of the events, and followed in subsequent scholarship, asserted that on this fatal date the freedom and joy of the church of the Lord was sealed with slavery.156 In his adjudication of the process, Bijleveld is of the opinion that it boils down to the nationalisation of the church.157 Recently Van Lieburg and Roelevink revisited the events and offer a reviewed perspective. Their evaluation provides for a positive inclination, noting that, after disaster almost struck the church down, Janssen, through the General Regulation (1816) rescued the church.158 The church moreover accepted the Regulation willingly, with only a few objections.
An objection was raised by the Classis Amsterdam. It convened on the 9th of January 1816 and as such did not have much time to scrutinize the Regulation. Its next meeting, that should have taken place in April, was advanced to the 4th March to discuss the General
153
Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 30–31.
154
Reitsma, Geschiedenis van de Hervorming en de Hervormde Kerk der Nederland, 374; Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795: haar Geschiedenis en Theologie in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, 27; Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 153.
155
Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 46.
156
Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 153.
157
Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: de Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 36.
158
Fred Van Lieburg, ‘Inleiding: Vogelvlucht’, in Ramp of Redding? 200 Jaar Algemeen Reglement Voor Het Bestuur der Hervormde Kerk in het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (1816-2016), ed. Fred Van Lieburg and J. Roelevink (Utrecht: Uitgeverij Boekecentrum, 2018), 12; Roelevink, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816: een hekgolf in de rivier of een steen in de vijver?’, 57.
Regulation. The Classes decided to object to the king and recessed the meeting to personally hand over their objection on the 7th of March.159 They motivated their objections by stating that a new order should originate in and from the church’s assemblies. It could not be incepted by the government. They were worried that this Regulation would lead to hierarchy in the church and that the Protestant freedom and confession would be lost.160 The objection of the Classes Amsterdam posed a risk for the government as this could be a catalyst for further protest. A few other objections followed:161 the Classes of Tiel on the 18th of March, Haarlem 19March, Utrecht 21 March, Delft and Delftland 25 March, Tielewaard 26 March and Gorinchem 11 April.162 The Walloon church of Dordrecht also objected.163
According to Hooijer, Tydeman and Van Loon, the decree of 7 January 1816, sanctioning the General Regulation, was, in fact, unconstitutional as Article 139 of the constitution of 1814 only gave the king the right over the financial matters:164
Onverminderd het regt en de gehoudenis van den Souvereinen Vorst, om zoodanig toezigt over alle de godsdienstige gezindheden uitteoefenen, als voor de belangen van den Staat dienstig zal bevonden worden, heeft Dezelve bovendien in het bijzonder het regt van inzage en beschikking omtrent de inrigtingen van die gezindheden, welke, volgens een der voorgaande artikelen, eenige betaling of toelage uit 's Lands kas genieten.165
159
Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 156.
160
Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795: haar Geschiedenis en Theologie in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, 30; Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 157–58.
161
Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 190.
162
Van Loon, 163, 236–71.
163
Van Loon, 215, 221, 257–62.
164
Van Loon, n. stellingen; Hooijer, Oude Kerkordeningen der Nederlandsche Hervormde Gemeenten (1563-1638) en het Conceptreglement op de Organisatie van het Hervormd Kerkgenootschap in het Koningrijk Holland (1809), Verzameld en met Inleidingen Voorzien, 495; Johan Willem Tydeman, Het Ontwerp van Gerevideerd Algemeen Reglement voor het Bestuur der Hervormde Kerk in het Koninrijk Der Nerderlanden, aan Beginselen Getoetst (Amsterdam: Joh. van der Hey en Zoon, 1849), 3,
https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=efxbAAAAcAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Algemeen+Reglement+1 816&ots=jIH_l2V_q3&sig=RDRvZhnHunFGyElnyoeaN5F-
wDc#v=onepage&q=Algemeen%20Reglement%201816&f=false.
165
Roelevink, however, contests this view, asserting that the Regulation was incorporated in a regular manner and the constitution applied correctly.166 Van Lieburg moreover notes that the independence of the consistories was still in tack in the Regulation, the confessions still served as guidelines and that the church in general gladly and willingly accepted the Regulation that
rescued. The Regulation was not forced upon the church.167 De Groot, however, argues that the Regulation was enforced upon the church168 while Van Loon echoes this: “het Reglement bleek een dwangbuis te zijn, waarin het leven der kerk het niet houden kon.”169
Roelevink notes that most scholars share an associated view of the Regulation where it is negatively typified as an order forced on the church and hierarchical in essence. This view, she continues, does not deal with the Regulation in its original context as the Regulation was accepted, was thorough, balanced and brought much-needed continuity. Therefore, it is better, she concludes, to not negatively typify the Regulation as a disaster or break, but as a wake, as the aftermath of the continuation of the church on the cluttered way of political, cultural and social development of the time.170
The last opportunity to protest would be at the National Synod, which now consisted of a small number of representatives appointed by the king.171 The church was now (willingly) disempowered and legally seated under the management of the Synod and government. Apart from the few objections at the National Synod on 3 July 1816,172 the church praised the king and a spirit of optimism prevailed for the future of the church. The love and pride for king and
166
Roelevink, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816: een hekgolf in de rivier of een steen in de vijver?’, 19.
167
Van Lieburg, “Inleiding: Vogelvlucht,” 12–13.
168
De Groot, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816’, 111.
169
Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 194.
170
Roelevink, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816: een hekgolf in de rivier of een steen in de vijver?’, 23.
171
Harinck and Winkeler, ‘De Twintigste Eeuw’, 609.
172
country at the time made any protest unpopular.173 Those who did protest were accused of “redeloos gemor” and “gebrom” and branded as “bekrompene lieden.”174 The General Regulation was therefore also exalted as an order far better than the old Church Order of Dort (1619).175 Roelevink asserts that those who wanted the Church Order of Dort (1619) to remain intact were not realistic, as it was an Order bound to a specific time that did not take the political and judicial developments of the new era into consideration.176 The General Regulation,
therefore, provided the needed continuance for polity in the new era.
In assessing the positive reception of the General Regulation (1816), the crisis brought about by the Batavian revolution onto the church and its historical position in the Netherlands should be apprehended. During the revolution, the church had no financial security, as the remuneration of ministers suddenly became the responsibility of the churches. Church buildings were submitted to a process of alienation and transfer to the state. The General Regulation (1816) brought a welcome solution and an end to the consequences of total separation of state and church. The king was therefore not only seen as the liberator of the Dutch people, but also of the Reformed Church.
De Groot notes: “Met de bevrijding van het vaderland kwam er een einde aan al deze angsten.”177 In a time where there was at last “Licht en liefde, hartelijkheid en
verdraagzaamheid”178 any protest against the Regulation would seem revolutionary. Whitford reminds that “Because the early-modern world was not yet a secular world, the theological
173
De Groot, 116.
174
Vijf Brieven, ter Verdediging van het Plan van Organisatie der Hervormde Kerken, in de Noordelijke Provincien van het Koningrijk der Nederlanden (Amsterdam: W. Brave, Boekverkoper op den Nieuwendijk, bij de Ramskooy, 1816), 40, http://kerkrecht.nl/content/anoniem-1816.
175
Vijf Brieven, ter Verdediging van het Plan van Organisatie der Hervormde Kerken, in de Noordelijke Provincien van het Koningrijk der Nederlanden; Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 183–84.
176
Roelevink, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816: eeen hekgolf in de rivier of een steen in de vijver?’, 31.
177
De Groot, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816’, 118.
178
affected the social and political just as much and sometimes more than the narrowly defined ecclesiastical.”179 The General Regulation offered the church a guarantee that it would be
protected against all revolutionary forces, a guarantee, De Groot asserts, that could only be given based on a legalised association between church and state:180 “Het Algemeen Reglement is voortaan de hechte verdediging tegen alle revolutionaire woelzucht. Het bondgenootschap tussen troon en altaar garandeert die zekerheid.”181
Vos also provides a positive evaluation of the General Regulation (1816), asserting that a new church was not established in 1816, only a new church order. This new order did amend the management part and other forms of the church, he stated, and partly the task and source of church polity, but the purpose and guiding principles remained the same.182 Van Lieburg and Roelevink also evaluate the Regulation positively, as a form of rescue for the church in the 19th century.183 It is significant that there is no period in the history of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands where the cooperation and unity between church and state prevailed as closely as it did during this time.184 This was the result of the General Regulation (1816).
In existing scholarship, the acceptance of the 1816 Regulation is also negatively assessed. Van Loon, De Groot and Pont are of opinion that even though the Regulation brought a welcome solution, the developments in church polity during the late 18th and early 19th century implicates, in fact, a revolutionising of the theology and ecclesiology in the Netherlands.185 The ideas and consequences of the French revolution steamrolled the European Protestant churches and church
179
Whitford, “Studying and Writing about the Reformation,” 3.
180
De Groot, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816’, 119.
181
De Groot, 120.
182
G.J. Vos, Hoe men zich in de Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk heeft te gedragen: systematische Uiteenzetting van het Tegenwoordig Nederlandsch-Hervormd Kerkrecht, Praktische Theologie (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1896), 25.
183
Van Lieburg, ‘Inleiding: Vogelvlucht’; Roelevink, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816: een hekgolf in de rivier of een steen in de vijver?’
184
De Groot, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816’, 120.
185
Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 206; De Groot, ‘Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816’, 116; Pont, Die Historiese Agtergronde van ons Kerklike Reg, 1991, 2:1.
politically paved the way in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland for the same “enlightened” ideas that were formulated by the German Collegialism in the 18th century. The governmental revolutions at the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century created the situation for the changes in church governance that brought the ideas of Enlightenment into practice and demarcated the church to a public legalised institution. In fact, the government revolution and church liberation supported each other and displayed the same spirit of the day.186 The General Regulation (1816) would inevitably embody these principles.187
On the 3rd of July 1816 the first National Synod after almost 200 years gathered in The Hague. The Synod of 1816 was opened with a church service in the Kloosterkerk followed by a speech by the director-general O. Repelaer van Driel. He called on the assembly not to quarrel over doctrinal issues, but to manage the church appropriately.188 At the Synod in The Hague the General Regulation (1816) was officially approved. The Church Order of Dort (1619), which origins can be traced back to the Church Order of Emden 1571, Dortrecht 1578, Middelburg 1581 and The Hague 1586, was now officially discarded. The Synod closed on the 30th of July that same year.189
2.9 Conclusion
During the 18th century the orthodox theology of Reformed scholasticism embodied in the Church Order of Dort (1619) had to contest the popular and growing view of the church as a
186
Spoelstra notes: “het Nederland met volle teue die denkbeelde van die nuwe tyd ingedrink.” See Van Loon, Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816, 41; B. Spoelstra, Beknopte Kerkgeskiedenis vir Katkisasie, 2nd ed. (Deur Christus alleen, 1960), 45, http://www.enigstetroos.org/pdf/BeknopteKerkgeskiedenisvirKatkisasie.pdf.
187
Duursema, “Communio Sanctorum – Gereformeerde Kerkreg versus Kerklike Geskeidenheid. ’n Biografiese Bibliografie van W. D. Jonker, 1955 – 1968,” 345.
188
Rasker, De Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk vanaf 1795: haar Geschiedenis en Theologie in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw, 31; De Groot, “Het Algemeen Reglement van 1816,” 111; Bijleveld, Voor God, Volk en Vaderland: De Plaats van de Hervormde Predikant binnen de Nationale eenwordingsprocessen in Nederland in de eerste helft van de negentiende eeuw, 54.
189
human community of (faithful and religious) believers. The tide of rationalism swept into the country to such an extent that the authority of the Word did not order public life anymore. This tide was already present at the end of the 17th century where the confessional standards and polity of the Reformed church that was clarified at the Synod of Dort 1618/19, began to lose ground as a rule of life, thinking and preaching. The reaction of the Nadere Refomatie in the 18th century against this tide proved unsuccessful as Reformed scholasticism was gradually abandoned and emphasis placed on internal piety, revival and practical theology. The seeds of rationalism and tolerance of the 17th century now took root and cultivated in the formulation and willing acceptance of the General Regulation (1816).
The willing acceptance of the Regulation (1816) has much to do with the fact that it was a modern document which ensured the authority and identity of the church in governance, polity and practice. It was moreover scientifically grounded and judicially formulated, which removed all uncertainties for the church. Through the Regulation (1816) the position of the church in a dynamic society was thus strengthened. At a precarious time the lifeline of the General
Regulation (1816) was thrown to the church and it was more than willing to subject to it in order to be saved from drowning.
Historically the General Regulation (1816) stands in relation to the political rejection of the French Republic and the ecclesiastical break between Christian church and Christian state. The period of transition from 1791 and following years, moulded the church to such an extent that it was theologically ready and willing to accommodate and accept the Regulation. The Regulation thus rather represents continuity than discontinuity. It was a period of transition, not one of transformation.
This interpretation of Dutch church history is crucial for this research, its method and eventual conclusion. During the historical period between about 1790 and 1816, there was an
insistence on transformation, on revolution, which, among other things, would result in the separation of the church and state. However, this did not happen. In fact, at the end of the period, the traditional thinking and its trajectories on the relationship between church and (Christian) state was preserved. It was, however, contextually re-interpreted, and in this sense, a transition occurred. It culminated in the 1816 General Regulation. This transition is the main reason why the history of theology since the Synod of Dordt 1618/9 has been considered relevant for this study. To assume a break in history, a revolution is historically accounted for.